The Definition of Points
in [Math]
|
Prev: Guide to presenting Lemma, Theorems and Definitions
Next: Density of the set of all zeroes of a function with givenproperties
From: Ben newsam on 27 Apr 2007 17:06 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:16:24 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >There are also certain problematic situations which are neither true >nor false. I don't claim "ideas" and "figs" are necessarily mutually >exhaustive but I see nothing wrong with assigning one to 1 and the >other to 0 as long as we're drawing up synonyms because one set of >synonyms strikes me as good as any other. Either that or you'd better >get to work in a hurry drafting rules for assignment of synonymies. A reasonable point in a way, as long as whatever scheme you eventually come up with provides useful results.
From: Ben newsam on 27 Apr 2007 17:17 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:23:39 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:25:19 +0100, Ben newsam ><ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>Presuming we already understand TvN binary mathematical logic >>>>>sufficiently, what's the purpose of assigning the aliases "true" and >>>>>"false" to 1 and 0? Obviously it's to pretend real truth and falsehood >>>>>share identical properties with mathematical binary 1 and 0 when in >>>>>fact we know nothing of the kind until we can demonstrate they share >>>>>identical properties. And the fact you call 1 and 0 by other names has >>>>>no affect on the properties of 1 and 0 or on the properties associated >>>>>with those other names. >>>> >>>>They are both mutually exclusive, and everything must be either one or >>>>the other. If you think they are not synonymous, perhaps you could >>>>point out how they are not? >>> >>>Or perhaps you could point out how they are synonymous? >> >>1 = true >>true = 1 >>0 = false >>false = 0 >> >>To say that something is either true or false is true, 1 + 0 = 1 >>To say that something is both true and false is false, 1 * 0 = 0 >> >>Perhaps you could now point out how they are not? > >Well as long as we're drafting arbitrary synonymies and claiming >arbitrary arithmetic properties for "true" and "false without proof >perhaps you could demonstrate exactly why the same properties don't >apply to "figs" and "ideas". I mean as long as you're guessing you >might just as well guess what properties everything has that causes >true=1 and false=0 where no other set of things does so there won't be >any further confusion about which things are mutually exhaustive and >which things aren't. I mean as long as you're guessing. Well... if everything that is not a fig is an idea, and everything that is not an idea is a fig, then you have the set of everything, same as you do with "true" and "false". The negation of "true" is "false", and (IIRC) set theory states that the union of any set with its complement equals the domain (something like that anyway). Now, the symbol you choose for "false" is conveniently zero, but the symbol for "true" is to a certain extent arbitrary, so long as the arithmentic works. I have seen programming labguages where "true" is -1. This has certain advantages that I won't go into here.
From: Lester Zick on 27 Apr 2007 18:52 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:04:25 +0100, Ben newsam <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:54:53 -0700, Lester Zick ><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >>Maybe you should consider explaining why you >>feel my demonstration of the mechanical origin of boolean conjunctions >>in terms of "not" compoundings wrong or why you consider "not not" or >>the "contradiction of contradiction" not self contradictory or what >>"alternatives to alternatives" you envision instead of blaming me for >>your own shortcomings and those of others and the contempt all of you >>seem to feel for truth and demonstrations of truth in universal terms. > >Now take a deep breath, and explain that in English. Having taken a deep breath, which of these words is not English? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 27 Apr 2007 18:53 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:06:23 +0100, Ben newsam <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:16:24 -0700, Lester Zick ><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >>There are also certain problematic situations which are neither true >>nor false. I don't claim "ideas" and "figs" are necessarily mutually >>exhaustive but I see nothing wrong with assigning one to 1 and the >>other to 0 as long as we're drawing up synonyms because one set of >>synonyms strikes me as good as any other. Either that or you'd better >>get to work in a hurry drafting rules for assignment of synonymies. > >A reasonable point in a way, as long as whatever scheme you eventually >come up with provides useful results. How can truth in mechanically reduced universal terms not be useful? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 27 Apr 2007 18:56
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:02:46 +0100, Ben newsam <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:58:29 -0700, Lester Zick ><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:11:24 +0100, Ben newsam >><ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:16:01 -0700, Lester Zick >>><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Who cares whether it solves the equation if the equation does not >>>>determine the truth of x or 4? >>> >>>It determines nothing, it *states* that two things are equal. In other >>>words, it states that the two things being equal is "true". >> >>Well see, Ben, therein lies the rub. How do you know it's true? I'll >>grant you that's what you assume it says. But your statement that it >>says that is not a mathematical statement. The mathematical part >>simply says they're equal and makes no claim to truth in general. > >I'll say it again: it states that the two things being equal is >"true". That's the beauty of logic, it does what it says on the can. And where's the demonstration that what you says it is is true? I'll grant you it's beautiful. I just don't see your demonstration of what it says on the can. >In the nineteenth century, their version of logic was as convoluted >and complex as you seem to want to make it, and they didn't get very >far with it either. Only because they had no demonstration for the truth of their logic. ~v~~ |